• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 369 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Odd, the high-info voters keep insisting that the deficit is out of of control thanks to Obama's unprecedented spending spree.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/whoa-is-the-us-on-the-verge-of-running-a-budget-surplus/

Even National Review's gettin' nervous.

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/347744/2015-budget-surplus-scenario

Course, the high-info voters also insisted that all the polls showed Romney winning in a landslide.

On the other hand, the economy and employment would've been in much better shape if it weren't for the stupid emphasis on immediate deficit reduction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/deficit-reduction-is-seen-by-economists-as-impeding-recovery.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2&

“Fiscal tightening is hurting,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, wrote to clients recently. The investment bank Jefferies wrote of “ongoing fiscal mismanagement” in its midyear report on Tuesday, and noted that while the recovery and expansion would be four years old next month, reduced government spending “has detracted from growth in five of past seven quarters.”

That period roughly coincides with the time that Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans have shared governance since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, promising an immediate $100 billion in spending cuts. Republicans did not get that much then, but the series of budget compromises with the president since — while not so great as they wanted — will soon reduce annual discretionary spending for domestic and military programs to the lowest level in half a century.

As for revenues, Mr. Obama forced Republicans to acquiesce in January to higher taxes from wealthy Americans. But worse, in the macroeconomists’ view, both parties agreed not to extend a two-year-old cut in Americans’ payroll taxes for Social Security, reducing their spending money.

In all this time, the president has fought unsuccessfully to combine deficit reduction, including spending cuts and tax increases, with spending increases and targeted tax cuts for job-creation initiatives in areas like infrastructure, manufacturing, research and education. That is a formula closer to what the economists propose. But Republicans have insisted on spending cuts alone and smaller government as the key to economic growth.
Is it possible for Rs to be more irresponsible and destructive than they already have been?

House Republicans expect to pass a measure that would allow the Treasury to “prioritize” debt payments if Congress and Mr. Obama cannot agree this year to increase the nation’s debt ceiling so the Treasury can keep borrowing money to pay all creditors. Under the bill, as tax receipts came in, the first priority would be paying creditors — like China, Democratic opponents argue — and second would be Social Security checks. But the measure would likely die in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The “prioritization” proposal first arose in 2011 from among the most conservative House Republicans, those who were driving hardest against the White House on raising the debt ceiling and expressing unconcern about default, but it has now become mainstream in the House ranks.

Economists and financial analysts generally dismiss the idea as unworkable if not dangerous, and count on Democrats to block it. Gregory Daco, a senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight, said the Republicans’ proposal was the kind that caused his clients to ignore the fiscal policy out of Washington, and rely instead on the Fed to buttress the recovery.
Apparently so.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Sounds about right.

I wasn't that excited about the 26 billion. 11.45 million per job was a bit of a hair raiser.

Good work if you can get it I guess.
This is one of the consequences of creating jobs in a moribund economy. Congress will not address industrial or labor policy to create more economic activity, so expect more of the same.

Also, I don't know if you've ever worked inside government contracting, but if you think the contractors are efficiently using the funds, then think again. Eventually, someone doing some work related to energy self-sufficiency is getting paid a few quid. That's a long, long way down from the top-line number.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
VeloCity said:
Odd, the high-info voters keep insisting that the deficit is out of of control thanks to Obama's unprecedented spending spree.
Haha. Bush #43 amnesia set in.

I'm amazed the vast majority of people who agree with the rhetoric love kicking themselves in the crotch so often and with so much vigor.

Repubs got their slashed spending at just the right time for the Dems to prosper off of it during the next presidential election cycle. Again, it's not like the Dems will do anything more than Reagan-lite they have in office now. But, they should get another go-round in the executive branch.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
This is one of the consequences of creating jobs in a moribund economy. Congress will not address industrial or labor policy to create more economic activity, so expect more of the same.

Also, I don't know if you've ever worked inside government contracting, but if you think the contractors are efficiently using the funds, then think again. Eventually, someone doing some work related to energy self-sufficiency is getting paid a few quid. That's a long, long way down from the top-line number.
Never worked for or in government.

Looking forward then to single payer government run healthcare.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Never worked for or in government.

Looking forward then to single payer government run healthcare.
Haha. I was bad at it though because I wasn't creative enough following the rules, yet violating so many at the same time. Fun times. Not really.

Regarding a single payer system, all countries with one have lower health care costs and healthier populations. Even a poorly implemented one is cheaper than the privatized system the U.S. has now. I don't really get why people want such an expensive American system that isn't providing a comparatively healthy working population.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
It is a shame that the guys back at the Embassy in Tripoli were not allowed to do there jobs. What a shame.
You mean the second team of guys who would not have boarded a Libyan plane until after the incident was over, would not have landed and made their way to the embassy until the incident was long long over, and instead were ordered to help batten down the hatches in Tripoli? Those guys? What a shame.

How about the jet that should have flown over the embassy but because no jet was close enough and there was no in-air refueling available for the nearest jet, no jet was sent? What a shame.

How about the gold I should have found unguarded by leprechauns at the end of the rainbow but did not because there was no gold and no leprechauns either? What a shame.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Haha. I was bad at it though because I wasn't creative enough following the rules, yet violating so many at the same time. Fun times. Not really.

Regarding a single payer system, all countries with one have lower health care costs and healthier populations. Even a poorly implemented one is cheaper than the privatized system the U.S. has now. I don't really get why people want such an expensive American system that isn't providing a comparatively healthy working population.
Not sure who you are referring to when you say "people"... but those who pull the strings (which is all that really matters) view it as great source of campaign contributions... trial lawyers, big pharma, physicians associations, hospital boards, medical device makers, health insurance co's, AARP... on and on.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Ah, austerians and deficit scolds, to borrow Krugman's term, way to set us way, way back.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/09/us/fiscal-policies-take-a-toll.html?_r=0

According to estimates by Moody’s Analytics, recent fiscal tightening through budget cuts and tax increases will slow economic growth for 2013 by about 1.2 percentage points and prevent the unemployment rate from falling to 6.1 percent by the end of the year.
Huh. Odd. At the same time "fiscally responsible" cons are insisting that we have to pay down the deficit and the debt RIGHT NOW, they're also complaining about a weak economy. You can have one or the other but you can't have both - which one do you want at the moment?

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4

The argument is over. Paul Krugman has won. The only question now is whether the folks who have been arguing that we have no choice but to cut government spending while the economy is still weak will be big enough to admit that.
Nope. Romney/Ryan are going to win in a landslide. :rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Ah, austerians and deficit scolds, to borrow Krugman's term, way to set us way, way back.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/09/us/fiscal-policies-take-a-toll.html?_r=0

Huh. Odd. At the same time "fiscally responsible" cons are insisting that we have to pay down the deficit and the debt RIGHT NOW, they're also complaining about a weak economy. You can have one or the other but you can't have both - which one do you want at the moment?

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4

Nope. Romney/Ryan are going to win in a landslide. :rolleyes:

Krugman is just a caricature.

But I must say you are nothing if not a walking contradiction.

1. You voted for the austerian twice.
2. Didn't you just post where there may be a surplus in just a few short years?
3. Who is in charge of this place?

Plus, Henry Blodget isn't an economist. So his isn't anything other than an opinion. His article wasn't even peer reviewed and I didn't see where Nate Silver approved of his conclusions.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
From bad to worse for Heritage.

After the Heritage Foundation's "study" on immigration policy was widely panned, from observers across the political spectrum, it was only a matter of time before its authors came under scrutiny. As we discussed yesterday, Jason Richwine, who co-authored the report and worked on its quantitative elements, has quite an interesting background.

As it turns out, Richwine's post-graduate research sounds a bit like eugenics -- he wrote that he believes there's evidence to support "a genetic component to group differences in IQ," and that whites are more intelligent than people of color.

But that's not all Richwine believes. Adam Serwer reports today:

In 2008, he told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute that "major" ethnic or racial differences in intelligence between the Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants who flocked to the United States at the turn of the 20th century and the immigrants coming to the US today justified severely restricting immigration.

Richwine's remarks, which he made as a resident fellow at AEI, did not receive much public notice at the time, but they go beyond the arguments presented in his 2009 dissertation.

In Richwine's vision, there are "real differences between groups," with Jews on top, followed by "East Asians, then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks." These "differences" in intelligence, Richwine argued, should help shape U.S. immigration policy.

And in case this isn't quite nauseating enough, Chris Moody reports that Richwine also contributed published pieces to a white nationalist website.

This is the guy who helped write the Heritage Foundation's "study" on comprehensive immigration reform -- the document anti-reform Republicans are supposed to rely on to defeat the bipartisan bill.
And turns out the lead author, Robert Rector, admitted that he hadn't even read the immigration reform bill. Nice job, Jim DeMint.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
From bad to worse for Heritage.

And turns out the lead author, Robert Rector, admitted that he hadn't even read the immigration reform bill. Nice job, Jim DeMint.
Would that be better or worse than Nancy Pelosi/ACA?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Was right all along. The numbers now prove it. That must be tough to swallow so I won't rub it in too much.

But I must say you are nothing if not a walking contradiction.

1. You voted for the austerian twice.
2. Didn't you just post where there may be a surplus in just a few short years?
3. Who is in charge of this place?
I voted for the guy who wanted a much, much bigger stimulus to kick-start the economy, wanted to increase spending to create jobs, and rein in health care costs. But Rs wouldn't allow him to do that, insisting that we had to cut spending RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE BECOME GREECE omg. Whatever happened to that btw? Seems to have gone the way of Solyndra. Anyway, those were the guys you voted for. They were wrong. Completely, absolutely, 100% wrong. No wonder they're so desperate for an Obama/Hillary scandal.

And speaking of a walking contradiction - you vote for the guys who have done everything they can to undermine and sabotage and slow the recovery and then you turn around and complain about unemployment and the economy? Come on dude, we all know this is just plain ol' hatred of everything and anything Obama.

So anyway, which one do you want - a stronger economic recovery or deficit reduction?

Plus, Henry Blodget isn't an economist. So his isn't anything other than an opinion. His article wasn't even peer reviewed and I didn't see where Nate Silver approved of his conclusions.
er, I thought it was kind of obvious that it was an opinion piece? Maybe not. Oh and Nate Silver - he was right all along too, eh? You'd do well to start paying attention to the people who know what they're talking about. Maybe start with Krugman and Silver and go from there.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Was right all along. The numbers now prove it. That must be tough to swallow so I won't rub it in too much.

I voted for the guy who wanted a much, much bigger stimulus to kick-start the economy, wanted to increase spending to create jobs, and rein in health care costs. But Rs wouldn't allow him to do that, insisting that we had to cut spending RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE BECOME GREECE omg. Whatever happened to that btw? Seems to have gone the way of Solyndra. Anyway, those were the guys you voted for. They were wrong. Completely, absolutely, 100% wrong. No wonder they're so desperate for an Obama/Hillary scandal.

And speaking of a walking contradiction - you vote for the guys who have done everything they can to undermine and sabotage and slow the recovery and then you turn around and complain about unemployment and the economy? Come on dude, we all know this is just plain ol' hatred of everything and anything Obama.

So anyway, which one do you want - a stronger economic recovery or deficit reduction?

er, I thought it was kind of obvious that it was an opinion piece? Maybe not. Oh and Nate Silver - he was right all along too, eh? You'd do well to start paying attention to the people who know what they're talking about. Maybe start with Krugman and Silver and go from there.
The numbers now prove it.
Which numbers? National debt? U-6? Labor Participation rate? Poverty rate? Food Stamp dependency? Unemployment? Treasury notes held? GDP growth?

I voted for the guy who wanted a much, much bigger stimulus to kick-start the economy
I hear ya... $700 billion a year just wasn't near enough.

and rein in health care costs
He did that. Haven't you heard? Obamacare passed and has dramatically reversed the trend of double digit increases in health insurance/healthcare costs.

And speaking of a walking contradiction - you vote for the guys who have done everything they can to undermine and sabotage and slow the recovery
No sir. Not a single R voted for Obamacare.

Come on dude, we all know this is just plain ol' hatred of everything and anything Obama.
Can you work in a "it's Bush's fault" somewhere in here... maybe a "because he's black" or something? This sentence is lonely without some other qualifiers.

So anyway, which one do you want - a stronger economic recovery or deficit reduction?
Looks like we are getting a tiny bit of both at the moment. What's the plan to reduce the long term unemployed? I read yesterday where Obama is going out on tour.."re-focused" on jobs... In TEXAS!

I swear to God I nearly died laughing.

It's not hatred Velo... it's just the sheer incompetence is a bit mind blowing. Laugh or cry... pick one.

Oh and Nate Silver - he was right all along too, eh?
Pretty bright dude. Have you seen his new demographic tool?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/30/us/politics/presidential-math-demographics-and-immigration-reform.html?_r=0

The left is telling the right they have to pull in more Hispanics to win national elections. According to Silver's tool, Romney would have had to receive something over 70% of the Hispanic vote to win electorally. The high water mark for R's was Bush with something like 44%.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

Maybe start with Krugman
Probably the biggest fool with a following. Interest will not be historically low forever. Try and keep that little tid-bit in mind.
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Interest will not be historically low forever. Try and keep that little tid-bit in mind.
It is whatever the Fed decide the rate is going to be, it is part of its madate to set interest rates and monetary policy, they use the bond market to actually set the rate (that is at the short end, they dont care about the long end as they are just a reflection of short term rates)
The only way rates will rise is If/When the economy recovers sufficiently and even then will not go back high, check yields from say just after Volkers experiments with monetarism to today and you will see a long term downward trend.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
BroDeal said:
You mean the second team of guys who would not have boarded a Libyan plane until after the incident was over, would not have landed and made their way to the embassy until the incident was long long over, and instead were ordered to help batten down the hatches in Tripoli? Those guys? What a shame.

How about the jet that should have flown over the embassy but because no jet was close enough and there was no in-air refueling available for the nearest jet, no jet was sent? What a shame.

How about the gold I should have found unguarded by leprechauns at the end of the rainbow but did not because there was no gold and no leprechauns either? What a shame.
How come the guys at the embassy were under the impression that they were opp ready and would be wheels down in 3 hours or less?

It was a poor decision to have the USMC fast team posted to far away to be effective.

But I have no idea why you are bouncing your leprechaun racist smack off me. :D you could have saved it for a more active target?

What would I know about US Embassy security anyway? Why would I have an opinion on stuff like?

0311 and b-billet 8156 (1989-1997):eek:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
It is whatever the Fed decide the rate is going to be, it is part of its madate to set interest rates and monetary policy, they use the bond market to actually set the rate (that is at the short end, they dont care about the long end as they are just a reflection of short term rates)
The only way rates will rise is If/When the economy recovers sufficiently and even then will not go back high, check yields from say just after Volkers experiments with monetarism to today and you will see a long term downward trend.

Sooner or later, the Federal Reserve will want to raise interest rates. Maybe next year. Maybe when unemployment declines below 6.5%. Maybe when inflation creeps up to 3%. But it will happen.

Can the Fed tighten without shedding much of the record $3 trillion of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities on its balance sheet, and soaking up $2 trillion of excess reserves? Yes. The Fed can easily raise short-term interest rates by changing the rate it pays banks on reserves and the discount rate at which it lends.

But this comforting thought leaves out a vital consideration: Monetary policy depends on fiscal policy in an era of large debts and deficits. Suppose that the Fed raises interest rates to 5% over the next few years. This is a reversion to normal, not a big tightening. Yet with $18 trillion of debt outstanding, the federal government will have to pay $900 billion more in annual interest.

Will Congress and the public really agree to spend $900 billion a year for monetary tightening? Or will Congress simply command the Fed to keep down interest payments, as it did after World War II, reasoning that "Fed independence" isn't worth that huge sum of money?
The obvious answer is to fix the long-run deficit problem, with the reform of runaway spending, entitlement programs and a pro-growth tax policy. So far that is not happening.

Still, the Fed and the Treasury can buy a lot of time by lengthening the maturity of U.S. debt. Suppose all U.S. debt were converted to 30-year bonds. Then, if interest rates rose, Treasury would pay no more on its outstanding debt for 30 years. And if the country couldn't solve its fiscal problems by that time, it would deserve a Greek crisis.
Alas, the maturity structure of U.S. debt is quite short. I estimate that our government rolls over 40% of its debt every year, and 65% within three years. (I account for Federal Reserve holdings, coupon payments and use market values.) Thus the fiscal impact of higher interest rates will come quickly.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith shopping for a mortgage understand this trade-off. Mr. Smith: "Let's get the adjustable rate, we only have to pay 1%." Mrs. Smith: "No, honey, that is just the teaser rate. If we get the 30-year fixed at 3%, then we won't get kicked out of the house if rates go up."
Amazingly, nobody in the federal government is thinking about this trade-off. Instead, each agency thinks only for itself.

The Fed is still buying long-term bonds in an effort to temporarily drive down long-term interest rates by a few basis points. It has concluded it can survive the loss in mark-to-market value of its bond portfolio that higher interest rates will imply, when they come, by suspending its customary interest-rebate payments to the Treasury. If the Treasury was counting on that roughly $80 billion per year, that is Treasury's problem. If higher rates cost the Treasury $900 billion a year, that is Congress's problem.
We are passing on financing our debt with 60 year lows in interest rates in favor of historically low short term rates.

As the economy recovers there is every expectation that rates will rise.

Additionally, it's almost as if inflation is no longer a consideration at all. What happens if the natural effect of easing and twisting in monetary policy takes hold?

A dangerous assumption is to assume interest rates won't return to more normal levels.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/John%20Cochrane_%20Treasury%20Needs%20a%20Better%20Long%20Game%20-%20WSJ.pdf
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Boehner on Obama: sequestration was a result of "failed leadership". Well there's the pot calling the kettle black.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/boehner-on-obamacare-debt-limit-strategies-take-it-up-with-my-members.php

If you feel like the inmates have taken over the asylum in the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) wants you to know that your suspicions are totally correct.

At his weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner faced questions about two aging and increasingly questionable elements of the GOP’s legislative strategy: repeated votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act and continued efforts to extract partisan concessions from Democrats in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling.

In both cases, Boehner acknowledged that the conservative wing of the House is driving the agenda.

“We’ve got 17 new members that have not had the opportunity to vote on the President’s health care law,” Boehner said, referring to next week’s ACA repeal vote. “Frankly they’ve been asking for an opportunity to vote on it, and we’re going to give it to them.”

And the debt ceiling? Same basic story.

“Our conversations have begun,” he said. “We’re going to have a big conversation with our members next week to talk about a way forward — what do our members believe is necessary to allow them to vote yes on increasing the debt limit?”

It’s yet more evidence that the party’s national and legislative strategies are driven by rank and file conservatives, not party leadership.
Leading from behind.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Wtf is in the water in Arizona?

First the state's Attorney General:
As reported by KTVK, at the incident occurred in March 2012, while Horne was being followed by FBI agents conducting a campaign finance investigation. An FBI report released in October said the reason Horne didn't stop after the accident was because he was having an affair with Assistant Attorney General Carmen Chenal, who was in the car at the time.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-ag-pleads-no-contest-to-leaving-scene?ref=fpblg

...and now the Secretary of State:

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican, has been paid $2,000 a month by a key bankroller of the Tea Party group Freedomworks since he took office in 2009, according to KTVK’s Dennis Welch.

From Welch’s report:

Since taking office in 2009, Bennett has been paid tens of thousands of dollars by Richard Stephenson, a wealthy businessman and a key player for the political group, FreedomWorks.

Bennett, who had worked for his family owned oil business in the past, draws a monthly $2,000 salary for his work as a board member for the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a for-profit company Stephenson started in the 1980s.

Though there is nothing illegal about the payments, it’s “because Arizona has weak, in fact, no conflict of interest laws,” according to Sam Wercinski, the director of the Arizona Advocacy Network.
No conflict of interest there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/arizona_secretary_of_state_on_payroll_of_freedomworks_activist/
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
We are passing on financing our debt with 60 year lows in interest rates in favor of historically low short term rates.

As the economy recovers there is every expectation that rates will rise.

Additionally, it's almost as if inflation is no longer a consideration at all. What happens if the natural effect of easing and twisting in monetary policy takes hold?

A dangerous assumption is to assume interest rates won't return to more normal levels.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/John%20Cochrane_%20Treasury%20Needs%20a%20Better%20Long%20Game%20-%20WSJ.pdf
Quoting a paper by Cochrane who uses Reinhardt and Rogoffs totally discredited "research" ? Seriously you need to keep up.


Lets try a proper economist instead a chicago school schill. Kalecki in 1943 "The rate of interest or income tax is reduced in a slump but not increased in the subsequent boom. In this case the boom will last longrr but must end in a new slump: 1 reduction in the rate of intrest or income tax does not of course eliminate the forces which cause cyclical fluctuations in a capitalist economy. In the new slump it will be necessary to reduce the rate of interest or income tax again and so on. Thus in the not too remote a time the rate of interest would have to be negative and income tax would have to be replaced by an income subsidy"

now go and look at a graph of the last 35 years of the neoliberal era and look at the downward trend of interest rates and income tax. Negative rates not possible you think? Do pay attention they have been talked about.

try political aspects of full employment by Kalecki and you might just learn something about economics instead of what amounts to a religion of neoclassical economics.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS